A study protocol for a randomised controlled feasibility trial of an intervention to increase activity and reduce sedentary behaviour in people with severe mental illness: Walking fOR Health (WORtH) Study

Abstract Background People with severe mental illness (SMI) are less physically active and more sedentary than healthy controls, contributing to poorer physical health outcomes in this population. There is a need to understand the feasibility and acceptability, and explore the effective components, of health behaviour change interventions targeting physical activity and sedentary behaviour in this population in rural and semi-rural settings. Methods This 13-week randomised controlled feasibility trial compares the Walking fOR Health (WORtH) multi-component behaviour change intervention, which includes education, goal-setting and self-monitoring, with a one-off education session. It aims to recruit 60 inactive adults with SMI via three community mental health teams in Ireland and Northern Ireland. Primary outcomes are related to feasibility and acceptability, including recruitment, retention and adherence rates, adverse events and qualitative feedback from participants and clinicians. Secondary outcome measures include self-reported and accelerometer-measured physical activity and sedentary behaviour, anthropometry measures, physical function and mental wellbeing. A mixed-methods process evaluation will be undertaken. This study protocol outlines changes to the study in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Discussion This study will address the challenges and implications of remote delivery of the WORtH intervention due to the COVID-19 pandemic and inform the design of a future definitive randomised controlled trial if it is shown to be feasible. Trial registration The trial was registered on clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT04134871 ) on 22 October 2019

Testing Multiple Coordination Constraints with a Novel Bimanual Visuomotor Task

The acquisition of a new bimanual skill depends on several motor coordination constraints. To date, coordination constraints have often been tested relatively independently of one another, particularly with respect to isofrequency and multifrequency rhythms. Here, we used a new paradigm to test the interaction of multiple coordination constraints. Coordination constraints that were tested included temporal complexity, directionality, muscle grouping, and hand dominance. Twenty-two healthy young adults performed a bimanual dial rotation task that required left and right hand coordination to track a moving target on a computer monitor. Two groups were compared, either with or without four days of practice with augmented visual feedback. Four directional patterns were tested such that both hands moved either rightward (clockwise), leftward (counterclockwise), inward or outward relative to each other. Seven frequency ratios (3∶1, 2∶1, 3∶2, 1∶1, 2∶3. 1∶2, 1∶3) between the left and right hand were introduced. As expected, isofrequency patterns (1∶1) were performed more successfully than multifrequency patterns (non 1∶1). In addition, performance was more accurate when participants were required to move faster with the dominant right hand (1∶3, 1∶2 and 2∶3) than with the non-dominant left hand (3∶1, 2∶1, 3∶2). Interestingly, performance deteriorated as the relative angular velocity between the two hands increased, regardless of whether the required frequency ratio was an integer or non-integer. This contrasted with previous finger tapping research where the integer ratios generally led to less error than the non-integer ratios. We suggest that this is due to the different movement topologies that are required of each paradigm. Overall, we found that this visuomotor task was useful for testing the interaction of multiple coordination constraints as well as the release from these constraints with practice in the presence of augmented visual feedback

Large expert-curated database for benchmarking document similarity detection in biomedical literature search

Document recommendation systems for locating relevant literature have mostly relied on methods developed a decade ago. This is largely due to the lack of a large offline gold-standard benchmark of relevant documents that cover a variety of research fields such that newly developed literature search techniques can be compared, improved and translated into practice. To overcome this bottleneck, we have established the RElevant LIterature SearcH consortium consisting of more than 1500 scientists from 84 countries, who have collectively annotated the relevance of over 180 000 PubMed-listed articles with regard to their respective seed (input) article/s. The majority of annotations were contributed by highly experienced, original authors of the seed articles. The collected data cover 76% of all unique PubMed Medical Subject Headings descriptors. No systematic biases were observed across different experience levels, research fields or time spent on annotations. More importantly, annotations of the same document pairs contributed by different scientists were highly concordant. We further show that the three representative baseline methods used to generate recommended articles for evaluation (Okapi Best Matching 25, Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency and PubMed Related Articles) had similar overall performances. Additionally, we found that these methods each tend to produce distinct collections of recommended articles, suggesting that a hybrid method may be required to completely capture all relevant articles. The established database server located at https://relishdb.ict.griffith.edu.au is freely available for the downloading of annotation data and the blind testing of new methods. We expect that this benchmark will be useful for stimulating the development of new powerful techniques for title and title/abstract-based search engines for relevant articles in biomedical research.Peer reviewe